Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 12 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2580 |
| Parties | Chanda Harris, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Marion County Public Defender Agency
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court
The Honorable Barbara Crawford, Judge
The Honorable Amy J. Barbar, Magistrate
[1] Chanda Harris appeals her three convictions of neglect of a dependent, all as Level 6 felonies.1 We affirm.
[2] Chanda Harris raises three issues, which we restate as:
[3] In 2015, Harris contacted Donald Campbell, stating she believed that she was his biological daughter. After paternity testing confirmed that he was her biological father, Donald and his wife, Denise Campbell, regularly communicated with Harris. At that time, the Campbells lived in Lake County, Indiana. Harris and her three children, seven-year-old I.V., five-year-old P.V., and three-year-old H.H., all lived in a house in Indianapolis with Harris' then-boyfriend, Robert Kuner. The house had previously belonged to Kuner'sgrandparents, but no one had lived there for twenty years before Kuner, Harris and the children moved in during March 2015. The house had primarily been used for storage purposes. Kuner's parents lived next door.
[4] In late 2015, Donald traveled to Harris' house, planning to stay over-night before he and Harris were to leave for a trip to Kentucky. When he arrived, he saw that the house was in an "extremely run down" and cluttered condition. Tr. Vol. II, p. 69. Specifically, the ceiling in the kitchen had been ripped away exposing wiring, joists and roof. The living room ceiling had a long crack in it with signs of water damage, and a portion of the dining room walls and ceiling had also been torn open. In addition, there was "black mold throughout the house in several areas." Id. at 75. The house was also cold inside.
[5] In the main bathroom, the toilet, bathtub, and sink were rusty and moldy. Donald saw a new toilet in the house, but it had not been installed. The children's bedrooms were also very cluttered, as was the garage. There was an upstairs bathroom, but it "was inoperable." Id. at 82.
[6] Donald testified that he visited the house at least four or five additional times over the next two years. Each time he visited he continued to see the same run-down conditions, clutter and defects in the house that he had observed during his first visit, however, it appeared to him that the rooms had become even more cluttered. In addition, Harris and Kuner bred dogs in one room of the house, and Donald regularly saw dog feces in the breezeway that connected the house and the garage. The strong odor of feces could be smelled throughout thehouse. At some point in 2017, there was no running water, the water had stopped draining in the bathroom, and Kuner, Harris, and the children had to go to Kuner's parents' house to bathe and/or use the restroom. Donald had purchased supplies to help them renovate the house, but the supplies were never used. The new toilet was never installed. During the ensuing period, Donald had expressed to Harris his concerns for the children's health and welfare due to what he perceived to be unsafe conditions and extreme clutter in the house. Finally, in December, 2017, Donald helped Harris and her children move out of the house.
[7] Meanwhile, in April 2016, the Campbells had visited Kuner's parents' house for a family gathering after a memorial service in honor of Kuner's father. Denise entered Harris' home to use the restroom. She saw broken glass in the breezeway entrance to the house. In the bathroom, she saw that the bathtub, the toilet, and the sink were "thick in rust and mildew and mold." Id. at 61. She smelled strong odors of "urine and mold and mildew." Id. at 58.
[8] Apparently, either in late 2017 or early 2018, an investigation was conducted concerning the living conditions of the children. Detective Jonathan Schultz of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was assigned to investigate the interior conditions in the house. During his investigation, Harris told Detective Schultz that they had used space heaters to heat the house because the heating system was broken. She further stated that there was a hole in the ceiling, and that "water wouldn't drain" out of the plumbing in the house. Id. at 88. In addition, Harris told Detective Schultz that she and the children hadto go over to Kuner's mother's home to "stay warm" during the wintertime. Id. at 91.
[9] When Detective Schultz had inspected the house on March 4, 2018, he observed that there was still a hole in the ceiling, there was clutter and dog feces throughout the house, and it was very cold inside. He took numerous photographs. Donald later stated and testified that the photographs accurately depicted the interior of the house during the times when he had visited, except that the rooms were more cluttered during his visits.
[10] On March 7, 2018, the State charged Harris with three counts of neglect of a dependent, all Level 6 felonies. Harris' counsel entered an appearance two days later. The trial court held an initial hearing for May 10, 2018, during which the trial court set an omnibus date of July 5, 2018.
[11] The trial court presided over a jury trial on August 14, 2019. At the beginning of the trial, before the potential jurors were brought into the courtroom, the State raised an objection to Harris' proposed introduction of Exhibits A, B, and C, which were photographs. Two of the photographs depicted the children in the house, and the third picture depicted a Christmas tree and presents in the corner of a room in the house. The State argued that Harris had not disclosed the photographs until the day before trial, i.e., less than 24 hours of trial. Neither the State nor Harris requested a continuance of the trial, and the trial court did not offer one. After the parties presented argument, the trial court excluded the photographs from evidence.
[12] The jury found Harris guilty as charged. Subsequently, the trial court imposed a sentence, and this appeal followed.
[13] Harris argues that her convictions should be reversed because the State failed to prove the conditions in the house were dangerous, or that she was aware of any danger. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018). We instead consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018). We will affirm the conviction if probative evidence supports each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 839, 202 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2019).
[14] To obtain convictions on the three counts of neglect of a dependent, all as Level 6 felonies, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris: (1) had the care of dependents I.V., P.V., and H.H.; and (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) placed them in a situation that endangered their lives or health. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(a)(1). Harris does not dispute that I.V., P.V., and H.H. were dependents in her care. We instead address the elements of endangerment and Harris' mental state.
[15] The purpose of Indiana Code section 35-46-1-4 "is to authorize the intervention of the police power to prevent harmful consequences and injury to dependents." State v. Downey, 476 N.E.2d 121, 123 (Ind. 1985). The danger referred to in the statute must be "actual and appreciable." Id. However, actual physical injury is not required to obtain a conviction. Williams v. State, 829 N.E.2d 198, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
[16] Here, there is ample evidence that the deteriorated condition of Harris' house posed an actual and appreciable risk of harm and danger to her three children. She admitted to Detective Schultz that the home's heating system did not work and that she had to use space heaters to keep the children warm. Harris argues that the house was without heat for only a few months before she and the children moved out, and that she had the children sleep at Kuner's mother's house on only one cold night, but her argument is nothing more than a request to reweigh the evidence. Donald testified that the house was "cold" even during his first visit in late 2015, indicating that the problem was more long-lasting. Tr. Vol. II, p. 69.
[17] In addition, the house lacked running water for several months, requiring the children to go next door for showers and to use the restroom. Even when the house had running water, the only functioning bathtub, sink, and toilet in the house were covered in mold, rust, and mildew. Further, the ceiling and drywall had been removed in several places, revealing water damage and additional mold. According to the testimony of Donald and Denise, the entire house had a terrible stench of urine, mold, mildew, and dog feces when they visited.
[18] Finally, the house had been used primarily for storage purposes before Harris and the children moved in and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial